From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S932710AbdIRQdN (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Mon, 18 Sep 2017 12:33:13 -0400
Received: from mail.linuxfoundation.org ([140.211.169.12]:39586 "EHLO
        mail.linuxfoundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S932586AbdIRQdM (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Mon, 18 Sep 2017 12:33:12 -0400
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2017 18:33:22 +0200
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
Cc: devel@driverdev.osuosl.org, Todd Kjos <tkjos@android.com>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>, Riley Andrews <riandrews@android.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Arve =?iso-8859-1?B?SGr4bm5lduVn?= <arve@android.com>,
        John Stultz <john.stultz@linaro.org>,
        Martijn Coenen <maco@android.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] android: binder: fix type mismatch warning
Message-ID: <20170918163322.GA25464@kroah.com>
References: <20170905085640.1566593-1-arnd@arndb.de>
 <20170918140244.GB21714@kroah.com>
 <CAK8P3a0_dOue+3jYaH3PNNvur7gpMaAVOm5MHfrZykj+3Z0Saw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20170918155347.GB19150@kroah.com>
 <20170918162303.GA27188@infradead.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20170918162303.GA27188@infradead.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.0 (2017-09-02)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 09:23:03AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 05:53:47PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > > It seems like a legitimate use case of the binder modules, but
> > > now there is a kernel Kconfig option that has to match a user
> > > space binary.
> > 
> > So, should we revert that?
> > 
> > I don't really know what to suggest here, sorry...
> 
> Keep it as is for now, and encourage people to fix it.  But we should
> reject any new patch that makes this worse or adds additional ioctls
> that don't follow our normal model.

That sounds reasonable to me, thanks.

greg k-h